Re: assertions review action item complete

Amy,

Thx. It wasn't necessary to renumber the existing assertions. I didn't 
want to break Woden.

I think we should do a batch renumbering before we exit CR, and provide a 
new->old map.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog: http://ryman.eclipsedevelopersjournal.com/
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063@fido.ca



"Amy Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com> 
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org
02/28/2006 11:33 PM

To
<www-ws-desc@w3.org>
cc

Subject
assertions review action item complete






Heylas,

I had three sections to complete:

Part 1 Introduction: I found no assertions in this section.

Part 2 Predefined MEPs:  I found a largish number of assertions.  I found 
it necessary to renumber all of the existing ones to match the list 
provided by Arthur.  I also changed several "class" attributes and added 
"required" attributes as necessary.  I added a number of additional 
assertions (at least two per predefined MEP).

Part 3 Predefined Extensions: I added assertions.

Note: assertions seem, in these areas of our document, to often be more 
complex than anticipated by the markup.  For instance, a number of places 
could quite easily belong to both the class "exchange" and the class 
"component" (all of the "MEPNameComposition-idnumber" ones, for instance), 
and there are a number of occasions in which an outer "MAY" surrounded an 
inner "MUST".  I do not suggest that we attempt a more complex markup for 
ourselves, but those interested in this sort of markup may wish to explore 
the requirements (and current limitations).

Amy!